|
mtnjohn
Apr 22, 2003, 8:37 PM
Post #1 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
These are our playgrounds & much more...
"CBS News
Saturday 19 April 2003
The Bush administration is quietly reshaping environmental policy to expand logging and other development by settling a series of lawsuits, many of them filed by industry groups.
As a result of settlements, the administration has announced plans to remove wilderness protections from millions of acres of land in Utah. It also agreed to review protections for endangered species such as salmon and the northern spotted owl, reversed a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and softened rules on logging."
|
|
|
|
|
dig_scott
Apr 22, 2003, 8:48 PM
Post #2 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2002
Posts: 303
|
that monkey bastured
|
|
|
|
|
papaswize
Apr 22, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #3 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 27, 2003
Posts: 109
|
The key phrase is "quietly". If you look at his record, he's done a number of things this way.
Pretty scary if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
perozee
Apr 22, 2003, 9:01 PM
Post #4 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 268
|
The mans only goal is to make money for himself his associates and the special interests that put him in power(big oil being the main one). Large companies govern the US, not the governement, and certainly not the people.
This is a very scary trend.
|
|
|
|
|
dave1970
Apr 22, 2003, 9:28 PM
Post #5 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94
|
CBS news is awesome. All things are told objectively and always in context.
If it weren't for them, how could anyone form an opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Apr 22, 2003, 9:33 PM
Post #6 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
is anyone actually suprised at this? damnit, we need to destroy the environment so we can make more money! :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
climber1
Apr 23, 2003, 3:42 AM
Post #7 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2000
Posts: 484
|
In reply to: sigh. :cry: How long is it going to take us to undo the national and global damage Bush & Co are doing? |
|
|
|
|
mozea
Apr 23, 2003, 3:46 AM
Post #8 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Posts: 76
|
"CBS news is awesome. All things are told objectively and always in context.
If it weren't for them, how could anyone form an opinion?"
i hope this is sarcasm...objectivity is a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
redpiton
Apr 23, 2003, 3:51 AM
Post #9 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 238
|
Your playground is being threatened. Lets get rid of the man when and while we have the chance.
|
|
|
|
|
robscate
Apr 23, 2003, 4:02 AM
Post #10 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2000
Posts: 348
|
yup blame Bush for reverting something that was originally done illegaly by the Clintonoris administration. The wildlife preserve he/she created was in direct violation of department of the interior and wildlife resource procedures. He didn't even have the balls to announce the new preserve in Utah from Utah....
CBS -> Constantly Biased Network
CNN -> Clinton News Network
Fox News -> pronounces Fuqted News
MSNBC -> Much Said, NOOne Bothered Checking.
Ps... There is a really good book on the market Called "Deriliction of Duty"
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Apr 23, 2003, 4:07 AM
Post #11 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
"He didn't even have the balls to announce the new preserve in Utah from Utah.... "
Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 23, 2003, 4:12 AM
Post #12 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Interesting how much people respect our president now. 50 years ago there would not have been one person here dissing him. Would that we had both presidents and citizens like we had back then. :cry:
|
|
|
|
|
misha
Apr 23, 2003, 4:14 AM
Post #13 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 344
|
He did a good job helping out Iraq. I applaud him for that
|
|
|
|
|
apollodorus
Apr 23, 2003, 5:37 AM
Post #14 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 2157
|
In reply to: There is a really good book on the market Called "Deriliction of Duty"
The Eyewitness Account Of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security
By Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.)
Carrier of the "nuclear football"
The best part is where Clinton loses the super-secret launch codes for the football on the day the Monica Lewinsky thing hit the Various Times. Patterson says he wasn't surprised that Clinton lost the codes, because he kept them rubber-banded to his credit cards in his pants pocket.
Mel Brooks could have used that one in Blazing Saddles:
"Sign here, Mr. President, and the National Hospital for the Criminally Insane will henceforth be known as the William Jefferson Clinton Gambling Hall for the Criminally Insane."
"GENTLEMEN! Today marks a great day in the history of the treatment of the insane gambler."
"Now, if there is nothing more on the agenda, meeting adjourned. OH! I am SO sorry, Mr. President! You're supposed to say that."
"What?"
"'Meeting adjourned.'"
"It is?"
"No. You're supposed to say that."
"What?"
"'Meeting adjourned.'"
"It is?"
"Nevermind. Oh, and Mr. President, VISA and American Express called. All of your cards have been cancelled."
"Thank God! I was afraid some chiseling, low-life scum was going to find them and go on a spree. It's nearly impossible these days to use the general funds to pay off those bills. Any word yet from the police? Did they find my driver's license? Or that photo Monica gave me?"
"No, Mr. President, no word yet from the police, the FBI, the CIA or the Secret Service on that one. I do hope they find those codes soon."
"Codes? What codes?"
"The codes to the football, Mr. President. You know, the little black bag handcuffed to Lt. Patterson, right over there?"
"Is THAT what that is? I thought it was his lunch. Well, let's get the rest of the boys out on the South Lawn for a few downs before I have to go and address Congress. If we don't have the codes to unlock the handcuffs, we can just use those big clippers I've seen on TV that cut through chains and metal and . . . "
"Sir, the codes are used to launch nuclear missiles at our enemies. The football is what we call the electronic box with buttons you push to enter the codes. Lt. Patterson is with the Air Force."
"Well, no WONDER he gets sore when I call him Admiral! I think I'll head off to the kitchen for a snack. You coming? . . . ."
|
|
|
|
|
mzllr
Apr 23, 2003, 6:14 AM
Post #15 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 65
|
i'm glad everything went well in iraq, but it probably has secured bush a second term. especially when the democrats can't seem to put up a credible candidate to run against him. what do they have? like 7 people trying to be the democratic candidate? and the 2 front-runners out of them, john kerry (douchebag) and lieberman (schill), are just complete jokes.
|
|
|
|
|
perozee
Apr 23, 2003, 1:07 PM
Post #16 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 268
|
In reply to: and women whose sole purpose in life was to be barefoot and pregnant. That's really a world to which I'd like to return.
Ya me too! (few seconds of reflecting) Ohhhhh where you being sarcastic?
Me too. :D and I share your opinions.
Later
|
|
|
|
|
klimer
Apr 23, 2003, 1:09 PM
Post #17 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2003
Posts: 27
|
I personally think that President Bush is doing a very good job in office. Not many people would have had the fortitude to do what he has done while in office. Granted he has not done a great deal for the economy, but consider the factors that he has had to face since he began his administration. Two stick out right away: 9/11 and the recent decision the overthrow the Iraqi regime. He has identified a problem in the world that must be dealt with and he is helping the world deal with it. Some people might say that a war on terrorism is not our fight, but who else is willing and able to help combat terrorism? In response to the statement that President Bush does not get any credit for what happened in Iraq, and that it was the soldiers that accomplished the task, you are partially correct. Although the soldiers were the ones that went to Iraq and fought, they would not have done so without a strong president backing them. It is sad that President Bush may never get credit for what he is doing for the Iraqi people. If weapons of mass destruction are not found, everyone will say he was wrong to over throw the Iraqi regime on false pretense. However, we all have heard of the horrible things which have happened to the people of Iraq under this regime, so I will spare all of you from re-reading the wrong doings of the former Iraqi regime. Although President Bush has not done some of the things that he said he would do, we must remeber all the obstacles he has faced, that his presidential term is not complete, and above all the great things he has accomplished. I for one am proud of the President of the United States of America for being a true leader during some of the most critical times this country and parts of the world have ever faced.
Ben Watson
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Apr 23, 2003, 2:55 PM
Post #18 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
Just go ask the family farmers and ranchers who had MILLIONS of acres of land rendered vitually worthless when they became "Protected." One article, Time I think, featured a rancher with 10,000 acres who saw his value drop from ~$4000/acre to $400/acre which the Gov't then offered to buy at the new lower adjusted rate. That's a $36 MILLION value drop. Go lookup the news stories of how that was ALSO done quietly, and illegally, oh yeah and how it was followed by huge campaign donations by the Nature conservancy, Seirra Club et al.
They all do it, Dems or Republicans, Clinton or Bush, probably all the way back to honest Abe. Lobbyists and special interests make all the real decisions, it's simply a matter of which ones the particular side yeilds to. So let's make sure we at least give equal credit/blame. My idea? Everyone in America donate $100 and take the roughly $20 Billion you raise and buy all these lands at Fair Market Value, then protect them. Best of both worlds. Anyone in with me?
"Though I'm also not a big supporter of Clinton, I'll take a President any day who's more interested in preserving the remaining shreds of the environment, legally or otherwise, than someone whose sole interest is to defecate on the remaining wilderness areas for personal gain."
|
|
|
|
|
perozee
Apr 23, 2003, 3:13 PM
Post #19 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 268
|
In reply to: ...He has identified a problem in the world that must be dealt with and he is helping the world deal with it....
Geeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
There is so much I disagree with in your post I don't know where to start.... You are seeing the situation through government issued pink glasses my friend. All I can suggest is that you stop watching CNN and start reading up on the history of what led to the current situation.
Just one thing though about fighting "terrorism". Look at the palestinian struggle in the ocupied territories for the last 50 years and tell me that brute force solved the terrorist attacks against the jewish population...
Shock and Awe campaign = Terror campaign on the part of those who claim to want to rid us of terrorism. Hum...
Weapons of mass destruction: Wonder who has the biggest stock pile of those things.....
Weaponse of mass destruction: Why is it OK for Israel to have nukes but none of the other Arab contries
Fuge it all
|
|
|
|
|
rhu
Apr 23, 2003, 3:40 PM
Post #20 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 242
|
I find it humorous that our "allies" are not really behind us at all. I recently went to a book reading by a man, David Sedaris, who lives in London for a part of the year. He reported, after being questioned about it, that no one in London is for the "war." Blair is/was essentially kissing our a** as he continues the long tradition of British PMs lying down to ride our coattails.
Perozee had it right when he mentioned that it is alright for Israel to have Nukes but no one else. I forget where I read it but the "liberation" was based on humanitatian ground. Or so we are led to believe. If we are the salvation of the Earth then what about Cuba? What about China? I applaud and support our troops, but come on Iraq is a third world country for all intents and purposes.
Politics are such a joke and the bozo calling the shots now is the ultimate example of it. :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 23, 2003, 4:04 PM
Post #21 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
All I'm saying is that 50 years ago, Americans were Americans, and they supported America. Nowdays it seems that a lot of Americans don't like America very much.
Do some searches for cartoons and stuff during world war two. There was far more support for our country then, in fact it was nearly unanimous. The evidence is undeniable. That's what I'd like to go back to, and that's all I said.
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Apr 23, 2003, 4:27 PM
Post #22 of 66
(2616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
In reply to: Granted he has not done a great deal for the economy, but consider the factors that he has had to face since he began his administration. Two stick out right away: 9/11 and the recent decision the overthrow the Iraqi regime. Ben Watson
are you done humping his leg yet?? bush did not "have to face" iraq. he stuck his nose in it and when it got dirty he threw a tantrum. i agree that iraqi's will benefit from hussein's disposal, but he didn't exactly go about it 'legally'. if he were a great president, he would have followed diplomatic channels and shown that he has the resolve to do things legally.
if you honestly think gw bush is a great president then you are reinforcing the international opinion of the average american: VERY UNINFORMED!!!
put that in your pipe...
|
|
|
|
|
alwaysforward
Apr 23, 2003, 4:28 PM
Post #23 of 66
(2614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 979
|
liberation of iraq? no literate person can take that seriously. that's the UN's job.
the british gov't is _for_ the war on terrorism. why? hopefully the US's ext stop will be the IRA. if the US really wanted to stop the mass of global terrorism they would stop committing and fostering it themselves. a few examples, cuba, turkey, columbia, nicaragua, the middle east. look it up.
coldclimb - first, 'americanism' is the kind of thing only found in america, fostered by the government so they could do what they want, call dissent anti-americanism, and be loved no matter what they did. there is no italianism, germanism or canadianism for good reason. it doesn't arise from the people, but from the government and companies with capital interest in your blind faith.
second,
"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles" "
When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and purity of its heart"
Think about it. (Russel, Shaw, Nathan, Emerson)
funny how close we were to have been talking about how Gore makes out with his wife all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
furryfrisbee
Apr 23, 2003, 4:31 PM
Post #24 of 66
(2614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 260
|
In reply to: I find it humorous that our "allies" are not really behind us at all. I recently went to a book reading by a man, David Sedaris, who lives in London for a part of the year. He reported, after being questioned about it, that no one in London is for the "war." Blair is/was essentially kissing our a** as he continues the long tradition of British PMs lying down to ride our coattails.
And the Dixie Chicks knew what America really wanted when they made the comment that took them off the air on most country stations across America.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 23, 2003, 4:33 PM
Post #25 of 66
(2614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
There's a great cartoon out there about the whole Iraq thing, and i'm kicking myself for not cutting it out or looking at the cartoonist's name... but it's sumed up like this:
Frame 1: "Iraq with Saddam" and it shows an all-too-famous statue of Saddam Hussein, arm uplifetd in his familiar palm-to-the-sky gesture.
Frame 2: "Iraq after Saddam" shows another figure in place of the Saddam statue, giving the same gesture. The figure is Ronald McDonald.
I proceeded to laugh my ass off.
|
|
|
|
|
clmbng_addict
Apr 23, 2003, 4:49 PM
Post #26 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2001
Posts: 134
|
In reply to: Not many people would have had the fortitude to do what he has done while in office. Granted he has not done a great deal for the economy, but consider the factors that he has had to face since he began his administration. Two stick out right away: 9/11 and the recent decision the overthrow the Iraqi regime. He has identified a problem in the world that must be dealt with and he is helping the world deal with it. we must remeber all the obstacles he has faced, that his presidential term is not complete, and above all the great things he has accomplished.
I wouldn't call those two factors of which you speak obstacles so much as they are two of the best things that ever happened for his administration. Here is an alternate way of looking at it:
Using the events of 9/11, Bush was able to rally the support of the vast majority of the American public by exploiting everyone's inflated sense of patriotism and by maintaining it through fear and catchy, cliche patriotic phrases. He thus successfully redirected most of the country's attention from the pisspoor job he was doing with the economy and other domestic affairs, as well as from his isolationist foreign policies for quite some time after Sept. 11.
Eventually his approval ratings gradually began to slip as people finally started to wake up again, so he decides that a country with a sh!tload of oil (which we will badly need in 20 years if Cheney's energy policy remains the trend of the 21st century) is presenting a considerable threat to our national security with all its weapons of mass destruction and whatnot, so much so that it is necessary for us to alienate ourselves from 90% of the rest of the world to wage war. We let ourselves be convinced that the world can be seen in terms of good and evil, that we are the bearers of freedom and happiness, and that anyone who disagrees with us is a fool and clearly isn't open-minded. Once again fear, blind patriotism, propoganda, and those damn patriotic phrases are used to bring support of the war and Bush's job approval ratings up to a sizable majority, and we are again successfully distracted. When no weapons of mass destruction are found, the intent of the war suddenly switches to liberating the people of Iraq so we can all continue to feel good about ourselves and our president and maintain that the rest of the world is ignorant. And of course now that Iraq is relatively secure everyone is even more convinced that we know what is right and Bush is the man, because the majority of Americans seem unable to see things in the longterm, view the world from anything but a westernized perspective, or remember anything past extremely recent history (for instance, what the hell happened to liberating the people of Afghanistan? Weren't they suffering under just as much "evil"?).
The result is our current situation: Bush and his crew can continue isolating the country, trashing the economy, pissing on the environment and basically doing whatever he wants while still maintaining enough support to probably win the next election and continue preemptively striking whoever he doesn't like and hooking up his homies in Big Oil. Would he have found a way to do so if it wasn't for 9/11 and this contrived war with Iraq? Maybe, who knows.....he's pretty deceiptful for someone who could only pull C's in college and fried his brain on coke. But these two events sure made it a heck of a lot easier.
Of course, i'm sure most of you will disagree with that line of thinking.....if most people didn't, then he wouldn't have been elected in the first place. That's just my opinion anyway, not an assertion (for the most part), since none of us are really in the loop or educated enough to insist on what is right. Try to consider it though, as an alternate perspective.
If Bush wants to identify problems in the world and then help deal with them, why doesn't he focus on solving the international water crisis, educating people in developing nations about contraception and AIDS, exterminating diseases in poverty striken parts of the world, or working on a plan to help feed the millions of starving people in such regions as southern Africa. The U.S. spends one-third more on national defense than it does on everything else combined (while a recent figure, i'm pretty sure that comes from before the war, so i have no idea how much more it is now). We feel all good about ourselves for "liberating" the people of Iraq, but how many millions more people who have been effectively ignored could we have helped and perhaps "liberated" from their own poverty with that same money?
Anway, when is this getting moved to "community"?
|
|
|
|
|
furryfrisbee
Apr 23, 2003, 5:07 PM
Post #27 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 260
|
Reuters
Apr 23, 10:05 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Primate expert and wildlife champion Jane Goodall pant-hooted like a chimpanzee at the State Department on Tuesday as she teamed up with Secretary of State Colin Powell to fight deforestation.
"We tend to spend so much time talking about the environment, talking about conservation, but we very rarely actually get the feeling during these meetings of the animals themselves, so here's a greeting for you from a chimpanzee:
"Whoo whoo whoo oogh oogh oogh oogh oogh oogh oogh oogh ooh ooh oooh oooh," Goodall bellowed in the State Department's Dean Acheson Auditorium, drawing laughter and applause from the diplomats and environmentalists gathered to mark Earth Day and to discuss the issue of deforestation.
"That may be the first time that the voice of the chimpanzee has been heard in the State Department," she added.
Powell said Washington was committed to conservation and he cited the more than $50 million which the United States planned to spend on the Congo Basin Forest Partnership, which aims to protect the central African rainforest from encroachment by loggers, farmers and hunters. The Jane Goodall Institute, a partner in the project, is helping protect chimpanzees, gorillas and elephants from being hunted for bush meat.
Powell said that he had a chance to see one of the forests first hand last year when he visited Gabon.
"I must say, however, that it was a bit of a disappointment. It was a nice walk, it was a beautiful forest, I was expecting to see animals, but my security people were there, and they are very good," he said. "I saw not one animal, not one insect, not one reptile, nothing. They had been cleared for a mile around. Nevertheless, I know they are there."
|
|
|
|
|
iluvny
Apr 23, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #28 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 4
|
you all are a bunch of pansies! i should cut all of your bleeding hearts out. maybe if you lived in NYC or knew & loved people that were lost 9/11, you just might realize that Bush is fighting terrorism and those that support terrorism! but yet all you hypocrites are most likely the same jerks that mock the french...
and who said it wasn't Bush to credit in the war but the credit should go to the soldiers.. well yeah the soldiers deserve credit, How about military strategy and the appointed chiefs of war?? get a clue or go live in Canada.
sorry but this thread pissed me off
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Apr 23, 2003, 5:40 PM
Post #29 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
In reply to: As a result of settlements, the administration has announced plans to remove wilderness protections from millions of acres of land in Utah. It also agreed to review protections for endangered species such as salmon and the northern spotted owl, reversed a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and softened rules on logging."
I hope this does not go through! There are several Yellowstone advocates from Evansville, Indiana that will be on Capitol Hill voicing there opinions...
|
|
|
|
|
furryfrisbee
Apr 23, 2003, 5:41 PM
Post #30 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 260
|
In reply to: sorry but this thread pissed me off
Don't be sorry. "Debating the issues" with a bleeding heart liberal is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and irritates the pig.
|
|
|
|
|
bones
Apr 23, 2003, 5:56 PM
Post #31 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 253
|
Regardless of what Bush's foreign policy is, he is still making some pretty shady policies on the domestic side. I for one can't trust this president, and I hope we get a better one in 2004, before my back yard is full of oil wells and our local forests are turned into golf courses.
|
|
|
|
|
mzllr
Apr 23, 2003, 5:59 PM
Post #32 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 65
|
In reply to: Give me credible evidence why they are jokes. Do you know their platforms? What's their dish on foreign policy, national economy, do their families have ties to major corporations, what's their stance on humanitarian issues? Tell me all.
this is from http://slate.msn.com/id/2079783/
"As some of you may know, I am part-English and part-Irish. And when my Kerry ancestors first came over to Massachusetts from the old country to find work in the New World, it was my English ancestors who refused to hire them."
-from when Kerry was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.
''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …"
-Senate floor statement by John Kerry
"The question before the jury is whether Kerry has systematically sought to con Massachusetts voters (a great many of whom are Irish) into thinking that he's Irish. Kerry's spokesperson, Kelley Benander, told the Globe the erroneous Senate floor statement was staff-written and that Kerry neither recited nor saw it. (It's common for members of Congress to submit written floor statements in lieu of going to the Senate floor and saying the words out loud, and these statements are indeed often written by staff members.) Neither Kerry nor Benander nor Jonathan Winer, the Kerry aide who wrote the draft remarks prepared for Kerry when he was lieutenant governor, recall the speech being used. (But they don't seem specifically to recall it not being used, either.) As for the Irish-themed Kerry campaign paraphernalia, Benander said it was meant to attract Irish-American voters, not to con people into thinking Kerry was Irish.
Still, it's striking that the Globe was able to find two separate instances where Kerry's own staff thought he was Irish and a third where Kerry's campaign invited the public to believe he was Irish. (Benander's explanation about the hats and T-shirts fails to persuade because Kerry wasn't visiting an Irish neighborhood. He was at a state convention attended by people with all sorts of backgrounds.) And it is striking that Kerry has never attempted to correct various references to his Irish ancestry that have appeared in the Globe, which is the most important newspaper in his state."
to me, he's a douchebag. i wish i could tell you what his stances are, but any statements i've ever heard from him are just rhetoric blasting the republican party and trying to garner press for himself. and it's also been widely publicized that the democratic party as a whole is very weak on all the major stances (hence losing the majority in the house, senate, and white house).
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Apr 23, 2003, 6:00 PM
Post #33 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
No, they're right, you just won't see the facts Saddam Hussein was no threat to the western world, none of his missles could hit us. Just look at Al Queda for proof. By that logic they are/were no threat either! (Sarcasm!)
Now the Iraqi people, absolutely they didn't want us there! That's why they spent all that time waving american flags and kissing our soldiers, oh, right except Bagdad Bob told us all that was a hollywood fabrication. (Sarcasm again)
Now they want us to leave, seriously, and this I honestly, no sarcasm, agree with. But we maybe oughtta wait till we find out exactly what happened to the Ace, King and Queen of spades as well as the other 30-40 plus missing members of the deck and the , by some estimates, 50-100 thousand loyalist troops and Rep. Guard units who just faded into the population.
Don't apologize ilunvy, The protestors may squawk the lodest but the latest polls show that 75% of the country agrees with you!
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 23, 2003, 6:02 PM
Post #34 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* to me, he's a douchebag. i wish i could tell you what his stances are, but any statements i've ever heard from him are just rhetoric blasting the republican party and trying to garner press for himself.*
Are you as weak at climbing as you are at thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
mozea
Apr 23, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #35 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Posts: 76
|
In reply to: you all are a bunch of pansies! i should cut all of your bleeding hearts out. maybe if you lived in NYC or knew & loved people that were lost 9/11, you just might realize that Bush is fighting terrorism and those that support terrorism! but yet all you hypocrites are most likely the same jerks that mock the french... and who said it wasn't Bush to credit in the war but the credit should go to the soldiers.. well yeah the soldiers deserve credit, How about military strategy and the appointed chiefs of war?? get a clue or go live in Canada. sorry but this thread pissed me off
ignornace, ignornace...join the masses.
"Powell said Washington was committed to conservation and he cited the more than $50 million which the United States planned to spend on the Congo Basin Forest Partnership, which aims to protect the central African rainforest from encroachment by loggers, farmers and hunters. The Jane Goodall Institute, a partner in the project, is helping protect chimpanzees, gorillas and elephants from being hunted for bush meat."
funny...we spend $80 billion on a war...and $50 million on precious live. this must be the best of possible worlds (sarcasm to be noted, unless you're completely inept).
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Apr 23, 2003, 6:16 PM
Post #36 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
It comforts me to know we have so many "knowledgeable" politicians here at rc.com .
|
|
|
|
|
iluvny
Apr 23, 2003, 6:17 PM
Post #37 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 4
|
deleted by iluvNY for the reason this post was personal
|
|
|
|
|
mtnjohn
Apr 23, 2003, 6:40 PM
Post #38 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
There are so many things about george that could be said
Let's just remember a couple...
Just prior to sending our armed forces into war ( i won't digress into the illegallity of that alone) our prez severly cut vetrans benifits.
Use 'em and lose 'em according to bush.
Let 'em fight but reduce thier health care nad retirement, which were already pretty minimal.
Next, george and his pals knowingly chemically attacked our own troops by using depleted uranium munitions! Known to be radio active, known to cause cancers, and all of this was learned during the first gulf war when are troops came home and started dying off!
Thats not to mention what it does to the people of Iraq.
Oh, and by the way, depleted uranium munitions are on the UN list of illegall Weapons of Mass Destruction. Isn't that what we are supposed to be stopping from being used?
Now our vets will have massive debilitating disease and far less health care available.
What a leader!
|
|
|
|
|
veilneb
Apr 23, 2003, 6:46 PM
Post #39 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2001
Posts: 189
|
IluvNY:
Is it so difficult to see that just because one thinks Bush is scum, and an eco-terrorist, it doesn't make you "pro-terrorism" and anti-New York?
I also don't need to remind you that he lost the popular vote. I pray every day that he looses in 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 23, 2003, 7:21 PM
Post #40 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: "Debating the issues" with a bleeding heart liberal is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
I was wondering why my left nipple oozes blood... it must be my bleeding heart...
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Apr 23, 2003, 7:26 PM
Post #41 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: Next, george and his pals knowingly chemically attacked our own troops by using depleted uranium munitions!
Where did you find this suspect tidbit?
Funny thing about our society today; anybody can put out a "factual" story that is, in fact, total bullsh*t. Somewhere along the way, people come to take these bogus stories as fact. That's too bad.
Another common, yet annoying, trait is that people become fixated on irrelevant issues i.e. Bush lost the popular vote. News flash - This doesn't mean a thing. Clinton failed to get a majority in both elections. It doesn't change the legitimacy of his Presidency.
It would be nice if those "bleedin' heart", touchy-feely types could focus more on facts and less on propaganda and emotional hot buttons.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Apr 23, 2003, 7:31 PM
Post #42 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Hey Renobdarb,
Have you run into my girlfriend.
Her name is McGill,
and she calls herself Lil,
but everyone knows her as Nancy.
Just wondering,
RR
|
|
|
|
|
furryfrisbee
Apr 23, 2003, 7:35 PM
Post #43 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 260
|
"Checked into his room,
Only to find Giddeon's Bible"
Now this thread is starting to get interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 23, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #44 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
There are so many misstatements in this thread that it is difficult to determine where to start. however...mtnjohn posted this:
In reply to: Next, george and his pals knowingly chemically attacked our own troops by using depleted uranium munitions! Known to be radio active, known to cause cancers, and all of this was learned during the first gulf war when are troops came home and started dying off!
DU may or may not cause cancers, but stating this as a fact is ridiculous. If it is a carcinogen, it is due to properties found in many heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium etc--and not due to radioactivity.
So, what you "learned during the first Gulf war" was apparently nothing more than to buy into the BS being tossed around by those who know absolutely nothing.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Apr 23, 2003, 7:55 PM
Post #45 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: if everyone votes wisely, we should be rid of him in early november of 2004.
If everyone votes wisely, no one who wants the job will win.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
perozee
Apr 23, 2003, 7:57 PM
Post #46 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 268
|
Bumblie about depleted uranium munitions
In reply to: Where did you find this suspect tidbit?
Use the google search engine on this site and learn. Here are just a few sites that should enlighten you:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99993627&sub=News%20update
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList136/3105566F330BC2ECC1256B66005F8843
http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/depleteduranium.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/vonhippe.pdf
Even crappy CNN has an article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/04/23/sprj.nilaw.uranium.ap/
|
|
|
|
|
newtons_law
Apr 23, 2003, 8:05 PM
Post #47 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 93
|
Hey, Dubya was in the Dacks last year. He was showing the world how much he cared for the environment. He was helping fix a trail. The funny thing is once the snow started to blow in he look kinda out of place and wonderfully cold in his classy penny loafers. To think he was in the national guard... kinda... kinda in the national guard.
G
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 23, 2003, 8:09 PM
Post #48 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
lol, now this has turned into a political "who likes who" fight in stead of the original topic, like so many other topics here. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Apr 23, 2003, 8:13 PM
Post #49 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Half of you are mindless, pathetic sheep, who seem to know everything about nothing....and try to make a point with it!
Someone pleeeeze move this lame thread to the choss pile where it belongs..... :evil: :evil: :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 23, 2003, 8:19 PM
Post #50 of 66
(2681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
mtnjohn,
In reply to: As a result of settlements, the administration has announced plans to remove wilderness protections from millions of acres of land in Utah. It also agreed to review protections for endangered species such as salmon and the northern spotted owl, reversed a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and softened rules on logging.
If you think that placing additional restrictions on land access (as the Clinton administration did) will somehow magically exclude climbers and only apply to loggers and ranchers, I'm afraid you are mistaken.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Apr 23, 2003, 8:51 PM
Post #51 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
8)
|
|
|
|
|
climberpunk
Apr 23, 2003, 9:07 PM
Post #52 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 171
|
point one: In reply to: And the Dixie Chicks knew what America really wanted when they made the comment that took them off the air on most country stations across America.
point two:
IN NO WAY do all families and friends of september 11th families support the administration or the war. look at this site, SEPTEMBER 11th FAMILIES FOR PEACEFUL TOMORROWS "September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows condemns unconditionally the illegal, immoral, and unjustified US-led military action in Iraq. As family members of September 11th victims, we know how it feels to experience "shock and awe," and we do not want other innocent families to suffer the trauma and grief that we have endured. While we also condemn the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime, it does not justify the brutality, death and destruction being visited upon Iraq and its citizens by our own government."
point three:
As far as anti-war activists using catchphrases, trust me, none do that as well as the bush administration. Bush applies the word "terrorist" to everyone but the US government.
point four:
If the goal in Iraq was truly to end suffering, than WAR WAS THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.
according to the Pentagon, the war will cost between 70-200 BILLION
according to the UN, it would cost 800 MILLION to fund programs that would end hunger for a year.
DO THE MATH: WAR=between 87.5 and 250 times what it would cost to END HUNGER FOR A YEAR.
OVER TEN TIMES AS MANY CHILDREN DIE FROM HUNGER EVERY DAY [36,500] THAN PEOPLE [OF] DIED FROM THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPT. 11th [3,030] [edited after ColdClimb pointed out my bad wording]
point five: The Bush administration has done nothing to preserve the rights of Americans. Have you looked at the Patriot acts? If the second one gets passed, SECERET ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS, WITHOUT A TRIAL OR COURT ORDER WILL BE LEGAL. TO ANYONE. according to the ACLU, roughly a third to a half of the bill of rights, has been suspended.
point six: CORRUPTION. Who gets the contracts to rebuild, and temporarily control, the oil fields in Iraq? Dick Chaney's old company. THIS WAR IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: EMPIRE AND OIL
point seven: the above and below points are in no particular order
point eight: If this war was sooo justified, why did the majority of the international community oppose it?
point nine: WHO THE HELL GAVE SADDAM THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION??????? THE SAME PPl WHO ARMED THE TALIBAN - THE US GOVERNMENT. We shipped him the CX2 nerve gas from VA, i drive past the base every weekend, on my way to climb. :wink:
point ten: BUSH DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! He is trying to make MASSIVE cuts in veterans aid, as well as making veterans pay for previously free health care.
point eleven: BUSH SUX AT ECONIMICS!!! HE LOST A 3 TRILLION BUDGET SURPlUS!! I DIDNT EVEN KNOW WE HAD THREE TRILLION DOLLERS AND HE MANAGED TO GET THE COUNTRY INTO ANOTHER DEFECIT
Ok im done ranting...at least for now. IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF MY POINTS, PLEASE PM, OR IM ME!!!! I would love to dispel your doubhts, or if im wrong, to know the err of my ways. The only reason i feel i can say what i have is because i belive it to be true, it is in no way intended to be propaganda, simply the truth.
edited for typos [im sure there are more, i just saw a few glaring ones]
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 23, 2003, 9:15 PM
Post #53 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: Hey Renobdarb, Have you run into my girlfriend. Her name is McGill, and she calls herself Lil, but everyone knows her as Nancy. Just wondering, RR
that's a cute little poem... did you write it yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
climberpunk
Apr 23, 2003, 9:38 PM
Post #55 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 171
|
sorry correction made. More children die from hunger every day [36,500] than everyone [children] in the world trade center and pentagon terrorist attacks [3,030]. I went and got the actual numbers too, which are absurd....thats over ten times as many deaths from hunger...so which is a bigger problem? Oh, and the number for hunger deaths is from the UN, sept 11 deaths is the generally accepted number. thanx coldclimb~!
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Apr 23, 2003, 10:48 PM
Post #56 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Just a random observation:
Saddam was storing the food from the "food for oil" program and letting his people starve right? So maybe the war did something productive in that less people will now starve in the long run? SWEET JESUS, WHAT A CONCEPT! Even if food is distributed to "end world hunger" it will not get into the hands of those that need it in many countries. Why do you think we went into Mogadishu (sp?). The powerful take the food and let the people starve. War isn't the best thing in the world, and maybe the reasons were screwed, but i think that the long term result of this one is beneficial for the world and Iraqis. By the way, George Bush is an A$$hole who should NOT be reelected.
|
|
|
|
|
flyinghatchet
Apr 23, 2003, 10:54 PM
Post #57 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 742
|
In reply to: mtnjohn, In reply to: As a result of settlements, the administration has announced plans to remove wilderness protections from millions of acres of land in Utah. It also agreed to review protections for endangered species such as salmon and the northern spotted owl, reversed a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and softened rules on logging. I think it is important to differentiate your real friends from your true enemies. As a climber (and I assume you are a climber) you should applaud Bush's actions in this regard. Removing restrictions to land is also what the "Access Fund" does on behalf of climbers. If you think that placing additional restrictions on land access (as the Clinton administration did) will somehow magically exclude climbers and only apply to loggers and ranchers, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Curt
Curt,
It may be great for climbers to have more land to climb, but just look at some of the other stuff: Snowmobiling in Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons, more logging, and possibly dropping protected species. I'd love to have more places to climb as much as anyone else, but the other things I'm not liking. It'd be great if he was trying to pass something for non-lasting recreation, but he's not.
|
|
|
|
|
flyinghatchet
Apr 23, 2003, 11:02 PM
Post #58 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 742
|
Curt (again, sorry I forgot to write this in my last post),
I'm sure mtnjohn would like to have more land to climb, but he's posting because of the other reasons, snowmobiling, logging, etc. If he was happy about it, I'm sure he'd be writing that he was happy about it, but he's not. He was informing us of what Bush is doing behind our backs.
BTW, when I said non-lasting recreation I meant not leaving a trace, just didn't want that to be misinterpereted.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 23, 2003, 11:51 PM
Post #59 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Curt (again, sorry I forgot to write this in my last post), I'm sure mtnjohn would like to have more land to climb, but he's posting because of the other reasons, snowmobiling, logging, etc. If he was happy about it, I'm sure he'd be writing that he was happy about it, but he's not. He was informing us of what Bush is doing behind our backs. BTW, when I said non-lasting recreation I meant not leaving a trace, just didn't want that to be misinterpereted.
flyinghatchet,
There are impacts from climbing just as there are impacts from these other activities. Perhaps not to the same degree as logging, but chalk, slings, bolts, trail formation and erosion, etc. do occur as a result of land use for climbing.
So, you are actually helping me to make my point. If you (as a climber) want access to public lands for your chosen activity--you had better support others who also want access--albeit for different reasons. The alternative proposed by many the extreme environmentalists is that no one gets any access--for any reason.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
rhu
Apr 24, 2003, 12:03 AM
Post #60 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 242
|
This is not going anywhere and no one is going to win or have their minds changed. How about this being the last post and all of us get back to what we came here for in the first place, climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
clmbng_addict
Apr 24, 2003, 12:13 AM
Post #61 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2001
Posts: 134
|
Curt,
Maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see how flyinghatchet was helping you make your point. The environmental impacts from climbing are virtually nihl compared to those made by logging, snowmobiling, drilling, mining, ranching, etc. We would all like more places to climb, but not necessarily at the expense of the lands on which we climb (and by expense i'm not talking about leaving chalk marks, trails, or some bolts, i'm referring to things such as logging). I mean, that would be really selfish of us if we wanted every potential climbing area open to all forms of environmental exploitation simply for our own climbing pleasure. Personally, I would rather not climb in these areas then climb while watching them be logged, mined, and ranched.
Dave
Edit--I submitted this before i saw the thing that rhu said. My bad.....I'll make that my last post (I think).
|
|
|
|
|
iluvny
Apr 24, 2003, 2:28 PM
Post #62 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 4
|
Skibabage
As far as the NY times goes, I was in Union Square at that time and there was a small percentage of people that were antiwar. What the article does not mention is that thousands of people lined the NY streets showing support and waving flags!
DO NOT SITE A BS ARTICLE TO ME WHEN I WAS THERE FIRST HAND!
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Apr 24, 2003, 3:15 PM
Post #63 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Iluvny,
Don't fall for Skibabe's private e-mail trap. She'll exchange a couple of times (along the lines of "I am right, you are wrong), then realize she's outclassed and killfile you. This is effectively a block.
|
|
|
|
|
iluvny
Apr 24, 2003, 3:45 PM
Post #64 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 4
|
bumblie,
skibabage and i had our disagreements, and i believe we came to respect each others opinion. skibabage is a good person.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Apr 25, 2003, 12:40 PM
Post #65 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: Bumblie, You couldn't be more wrong. So sad to see you haven't a clue.
Another fine example of open communication.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 30, 2003, 8:56 AM
Post #66 of 66
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
climbing almost doesnt affect the enviroment (a little chalk doesnt hurt), but off road driving/rqacing, snowmobiles, logging have a great impact. jut imagine the noise, not to mention all physical harm to the nature.
so youre all starting to realise that bush has two policies... the firs one is loud and public ("war on terrorism", "operation iraq freedom") and is used to divert public attention from the secon "quiet" policy used to generate funds for himself and his asociates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
